Dating the New Testament

[jd01]

What is the current consensus of when the NT was written.

 

[1watchman]

The NT, like the OT are a compilation of writers at different times, and together by the Spirit of God present a unified truth for mankind, which God has provided us. There are various translations and versions of translations. I recommend the Old Scofield Edition of the KJV for much good understanding by use of commentaries in the footnotes there. For an overall history you can ask your question at Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL (www.bibletruthpublishers.com). They have an excellent book called: The Concise Bible Dictionary, which is very helpful for seekers.

 

[Johnnz]

Most were completed by AD80, some quite a bit earlier. Revelation was probably the latest one and was before AD100, although some date it even earlier.

John
NZ

 

[football5680]

The bible is a collection of writings, not one continuous story. Every book except the book of revelations was written between 35-67 AD. The book of revelations was written around 95 AD.

 

[ebia]

What is the current consensus of when the NT was written.

The undisputed Pauline letters between 49-64 AD, mostly early '50s.
The disputed Pauline letters between about 55-64 if they are Pauline, 64-? If not
Mark - about 65AD
Luke and Matthew in 70s or early 80s
John 80s
Petrine epistles around 65 if genuine but much later if not.
Revelation - opinion varies, but it has to be one of the big persecutions.

 

[ebia]

The bible is a collection of writings, not one continuous story. Every book except the book of revelations was written between 35-67 AD. The book of revelations was written around 95 AD.

That's certainly not the consensus.

 

[jd01]

I believe the scholarly consensus that all of the books of the NT were in their final form before 70AD. Why? Because none mentions the sacking of Jerusalem by Titus in that year. No author from there or Jewish (which is what the writers were) could fail to mention the event. Revelation was written late in 68 and talks about the events in Rome surrounding the Year of the Four Emperors.

 

[hedrick]

As always it depends upon who you believe. Very few critical scholars think it's likely that the NT was finished before 70, though J A T Robinson did. The consensus of scholars I believe is between 64 and 125, though personally I think it's likely that everything was before 100.

earlychristianwritings.com gives the range for each book, though I think the later dates they give are really unlikely, and I also think the early dates they give for some non-canonical books (e.g. Thomas) are equally unlikely.

 

[lesliedellow]

The problem with trying to date the New Testament is that both conservatives and liberals can put forward arguments which are plausible, but neither can make them conclusive.

The short answer is that we don't know, and are never likely to know. Although ultra-skeptics are thwarted by the fact that they clearly must have been written by the time people were quoting from them.

 

[Johnnz]

We may not know with absolute certainty, but on the basis of reasonable evidence and argument we can have confidence. For me that leads to a time frame well within the 1st Century for most of the NT books.

John
NZ

 

[ebia]

I believe the scholarly consensus that all of the books of the NT were in their final form before 70AD.

You can believe that date, but its not the scholarly consensus.

Why? Because none mentions the sacking of Jerusalem by Titus in that year. No author from there or Jewish (which is what the writers were) could fail to mention the event. Revelation was written late in 68 and talks about the events in Rome surrounding the Year of the Four Emperors.

That does not follow. However important an event you are not obliged to write about it in every text talking about something else. Not one of the books likely to be written after that date has any reason to mention it. Do you find it in every single other Christian and Jewish text written around the end of the first century? No.

 

[Johnnz]

You can believe that date, but its not the scholarly consensus.

If you mean do all scholars agree then you are right. From the 18th century in the glory of the Enlightenment people began to question any elements of the biblical story that did not 'fit' into their increasingly materialistic world view. In biblical studies the majority of scholars propounded later dates for the NT canon. Theirs was the orthodoxy until around the mid 19th century, when large quantities of new information becoming available and which has led to our current situation where rejection of the 'liberal' viewpoint is widely supported. Both camps remain (e.g. the Jesus Seminars) but the balance now is with those who accept earlier dates.

For a period ideology dominated history. Historical data has re-established its authority.

John
NZ

 

[ebia]

If you mean do all scholars agree then you are right. From the 18th century in the glory of the Enlightenment people began to question any elements of the biblical story that did not 'fit' into their increasingly materialistic world view. In biblical studies the majority of scholars propounded later dates for the NT canon. Their was the orthodoxy intil around the mid 19th century, following large quantities of new information becoming available and which has led to our current situation where rejection of the 'liberal' viewpoint is widely supported. Both camps remain (e.g. the Jesus Seminars) but the balance now is with those who accept earlier dates.

For a period ideology dominated history. Historical data has re-established its authority.

John
NZ

The balance has moved back from some of the extremes that were popular some decades before, but not to the point of putting all the gospels before ad70 as suggested in the post I was responding to, or accepting all the epistles as written by their purported authors.

 

[Johnnz]

The balance has moved back from some of the extremes that were popular some decades before, but not to the point of putting all the gospels before ad70 as suggested in the post I was responding to, or accepting all the epistles as written by their purported authors.

It is widely accepted that the synoptic gospels contain material from older sources, now lost to us. Thus, much of their content is quite early, some possibly from direct quotes from Jesus and early eyewitnesses. John's writings are later although more recently a dates as early as AD 50 but not later than AD70 have their proponents.

John
NZ

 

[ebia]

It is widely accepted that the synoptic gospels contain material from older sources, now lost to us. Thus, mush of their content is quite early, some possibly from direct quotes from Jesus and early eyewitnesses. John's writings are later although more recently a dates as early as AD 50 but nol ater than AD70 have their proponents.

John
NZ

There are a few scholars who date John before 70, but not many. Nowhere near a consensus.

Mark is probably before 70, and there may be other written material in Matthew and Luke from before then, but those two gospels as we have them are not - or more particularly the consensus is that they are not. Markan priority doesn't leave room for one thing.

 

[jd01]

You can believe that date, but its not the scholarly consensus.

That does not follow. However important an event you are not obliged to write about it in every text talking about something else. Not one of the books likely to be written after that date has any reason to mention it. Do you find it in every single other Christian and Jewish text written around the end of the first century? No.

Not every but there are some after 70 AD. The amazing fact is that none of the 27 books of the NT mention such a cataclysmic event. The reason I mention 70 AD is because it is the main argument for later dating. Mark is mistakenly thought to refer to the event and since, so the argument goes Matthew & Luke rely on Mark then everything is pushed past 70 AD sometime even into the mid-100s. The result is the assumption that gospel tradition is late 40+ years after the fact and makes it problematic that the original authors could have been involved, usually some nebulous 'community' with links to the original disciple. The traditional scholarly consensus puts the dates far too late.

 

[ebia]

Not every but there are some after 70 AD. The amazing fact is that none of the 27 books of the NT mention such a cataclysmic event.

It's not surprising at all - of the contenders there isn't one that has cause to mention it. We are talking about some of the most carefully crafted literature ever written, not random collection of stuff - someone trying to date by silence on an issue needs to show exactly where and why a text would need to mention the event.

The reason I mention 70 AD is because it is the main argument for later dating. Mark is mistakenly thought to refer to the event and since, so the argument goes Matthew & Luke rely on Mark then everything is pushed past 70 AD sometime even into the mid-100s.

Some thought follows that line. But a good deal of other thought dates Mark to mid 60s as that's where by far the best evidence, including the early tradition, puts it, and that pushes Matthew and Luke into the 70s. John has always been dated late, even traditionally right at the end of the life of "John the Elder"

 

[jd01]

It's not surprising at all - of the contenders there isn't one that has cause to mention it. We are talking about some of the most carefully crafted literature ever written, not random collection of stuff - someone trying to date by silence on an issue needs to show exactly where and why a text would need to mention the event.

Not so. Jesus in Mark, Luke and Matthew speaks of the destruction of the Temple. If Jesus had forecasted this and you were writing after 70 AD, after the Temple was destroyed in dramatic fashion, you would be all over this event saying how Jesus had predicted it. But they don't, they raise the issue and then say nothing specific just leaving it as a hazy future event.

Some thought follows that line. But a good deal of other thought dates Mark to mid 60s as that's where by far the best evidence, including the early tradition, puts it, and that pushes Matthew and Luke into the 70s. John has always been dated late, even traditionally right at the end of the life of "John the Elder"

I concur on the Mark dates. These are Robertson's dates which make the most sense;

James c. 47-8
1 Thessalonians early 50
2 Thessalonians 50-1
1 Corinthians spring 55
1 Timothy autumn 55
2 Corinthians early 56
Galatians later 56
Romans early 57
Titus late spring 57
Philippians spring 58
Philemon summer 58
Colossians summer 58
Ephesians late summer 58
2 Timothy autumn 58
The Didache c. 40-60
Mark c. 45-60
Matthew c. 40-60+
Luke -57-60+
Jude 61-2
2 Peter 61-2
Acts -57-62+
1, 2, 3 John c. 60-65
1 Peter spring 65
John c. -40-65+
Hebrews c. 67
Revelation late 68 (-70)
1 Clement early 70
Barnabas c. 75
The Shepherd of
Hermas -c. 85

 

[ebia]

Not so. Jesus in Mark, Luke and Matthew speaks of the destruction of the Temple. If Jesus had forecasted this and you were writing after 70 AD, after the Temple was destroyed in dramatic fashion, you would be all over this event saying how Jesus had predicted it.

A really crass author would be that unsubtle, but these are sophisticated authors who expect a sophisticated and well informed audience.